Ok. Today I take on the quasi-pervasive myth of ‘the best predictor of someone’s future behavior is their past behavior’ <which is actually not really true> and how to actually ‘predict’ some behavior <yet do so without invading someone’s privacy>.

———-

Psychological scientists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior. But …. only under certain specific conditions:

1. High-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors.

—-

2. Predictions work best over short time intervals.

—-

3. The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.

—-

4. The behavior must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback.

—-

5. The person must remain essentially unchanged.

—–

6. The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors.

———

Well. That is certainly a list that filters a shitload of people OUT of past behavior predicting future behavior <how many of us have not changed ?>.

Projecting behavior, secrets and personal privacy in a transparent online world is a complex discussion. Oh. And it is also a formula that doesn’t quite add up to me: sharing a secret + seeking advice on what to do <personal behavior> does not equal personal privacy. In fact, it almost presumes shared privacy & sharing secrets <albeit with some limits I would assume> in order to receive the desired projected behavior tips & suggestions.
In other words, I cannot get something without giving something.

That said. I did not mistype the headline.

I imagine all of us have shopped online or read an article online where the website has a nifty feature which says something like “you may also like” or “if you bought this you may like” tips.

Well. Some smart writers came up with that wording because the technology <algorithms> behind all the analysis that allows the suggestions to occur is really saying to you “if you liked this you may want to DO this.”
Please note as I discuss this topic while technology has changed a shitload of things, technology is simply a facilitator <sorry … it is not evil in and of itself>. It is the deliverer of the real game changer — behavioral analysis.

Now. Behavioral analysis can quickly get abused in that if we people do not think for ourselves and assess the information and ‘guidance’ we receive, we simply become sheep to technology herders.

I shared that ‘sheep’ thought because there is something called life-logging <a wearable or portable technology> that not only tracks us and what we do and where we go, but it can quasi-predict your next ‘expected’ move. It actually predicts and encourages your next move as well as provides a personal stream of information of your life <hence the name ‘life-logging>.

Yup. This is the technology version of “if you did this then you really want to do this.”

I believe there are several options available now but I am going to highlight Saga <no longer in existence> because I liked the way they crafted and wrote their site information:

——–

Saga automatically records your real life story, as told by the places you visited and the things you’ve done. We all have a great story to tell. Let Saga tell yours. Remember Everything. Life is short. Capture every moment, even the little ones, in your lifelog. Learn about your habits and set meaningful goals with the insight you gain. the apps integrate with services including Twitter, Foursquare, and Instagram, enabling users to pool and manage their own personal data. Narrato provides users with a “lifestream” so that information is available in one place and exportable for users to manage and save, creating an extremely rich picture of the user’s activities.

——–

In doing some background research I have noted that lifelogging apps do everything in their power to suggest they are not stalkers or creepy. They talk about personal empowerment, ‘giving power to the user’, and that personal data is managed safely in their own personal cloud.

Ok. Before I tell you how it works. Let me move to ‘secrets’ for a moment which, by the way, is a version of security <or personal privacy>.

Lets face it. Like it or not <and boy oh boy older people do NOT like it> in a technology world secrets will be, well, fleeting.

In fact I sense the only way to keep a secret is to not place it anywhere in or on technology <in fact I just saw an article where Germany is suggesting using typewriters again solely to combat spying>.

Now. Before anyone goes ape shit on privacy and such … keeping secrets has never been easy.

In fact. People have always sucked at keeping secrets. Thinking that technology is ‘infringing upon things that are ours’ is archaic thinking <at least to some degree>. I am not absolving technology for having some moral & ethical guidelines, but let’s be realistic.

Anything comes with a price tag. Everything is a tradeoff. Ponder that as we shout about <secrecy & privacy>.

Uhm. We also seem to want ‘if you liked this you may like this.’ Can’t have both folks.

Sorry. And it is gonna get tougher for all of us as ‘lifelogs’ slide into our lives.

That said. How do lifelog apps work <in this case Saga as my example>? They use the sensors on your smartphone to build your lifelog. It records the places you’ve visited and the trips you’ve taken without any input from you. All you have to do is go about your Life, living it, and the sensors tag along for the ride <recording & capturing everything>.

It’s certainly not perfect because it cannot always guess your location correctly <the first time around>, but ongoing action and behavior constantly improves the location algorithms. Saga actually does a nice job explain this aspect:

——–

There are a few reasons why Saga could get your location wrong.

• The Problem: Your current location isn’t in our database. While Saga knows millions of places worldwide, chances are pretty good that your home, work, or favorite bench may not be in our database.

The Fix: It’s easy to add new places to Saga in the Change Place screen. And once you do, Saga should have no problem following you to all the places you go on a regular basis.

• The Problem: You may have a bad GPS fix. It happens. While GPS satellites are amazing, there are times that they’re just not accurate enough to figure out that you’re at the coffee shop and not the burger joint down the block.

The Fix: Buy yourself a personal GPS satellite. Or invest in a portable cell tower. Or just wait for a few minutes until you get a better connection. Saga will deal.

——-

• The Problem: You’re at a new or obscure spot. Saga can get confused if you go to a really obscure place. Especially if that really amazing, but unusual bar is right next to a super popular restaurant, shop, or landmark. When Saga can’t decide between two nearby places, it’ll often predict that you’re at the more popular place — just to be safe.

The Fix: Tell Saga where you really are. It’ll file that information away, and won’t make the same mistake twice. (Don’t worry, we won’t clue others into your secret little hideaway.)

——-

But here is where lifelogging behavioral is genius.

Because it is pop psychology <hence not really true> that ‘past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.’

Oops. That psychology is not so much a fact.

Sorry. The truth is that the situation more often dictates behavior rather than anything we may have done in the past <and we also accumulate knowledge and therefore adapt>.

——–

“Researchers have determined that the situation plays a critical role in behavior. The situation is often more determinative than individual character traits. Personality theorist Walter Mischel – frequently cited in connection with the “best predictor” maxim – suggests that behavioral consistency is best described through if-then relationships between situations and behaviors, as in: “She does A when X, but B when Y.” So, a person may engage in heavy drug use when in the company of drug-using peers, but may stop using when she moves away and gets a fulfilling job.

———

This suggests lifelogging is genius. It can actually assist in managing some behavioral aspects at the prime time to do so, within context, situational context as a matter of fact. It can see past behavior, recent actions and movement behavior. It can predict by combining past behavior & situational context.

Ok. It cannot predict, but rather ‘smartly suggest.’

Anyway. While lifelogging sounds really cool <in one way> it also sounds quite ‘big brother-esque’ in another way. The app seeks patterns in human behavior recording how much time you spend going places and doing things. Based on this information the app then provides suggestions <and while we humans hate to admit it … we are quite susceptible to suggestions … uhm … particularly if they are based on past behavior>. Supposedly as we learn more about ourselves and what we do <behaviors> we would begin making decisions based on what they’ve learned about themselves and not what businesses are pushing down their throats.

I imagine we will all struggle a little bit on whether these apps predict things we would like to do or influence us in some way in ‘guiding’ us to some actions <this is a looped behavioral relationship difficult to discern beginning from end>.

As for the unequivocally good. There is a company called Geppetto Avatars which has developed a health care with virtual physician’s assistants <that quite feasibly could actually be smarter than any doctor in the world>. For example.

———

In one of the company’s allergy applications, a sympathetic young doctor named Sophie talks you through air quality and the pollen index in your neighborhood. Then, she makes sure that you’re taking your prescriptions right. When you tell her you’re feeling really bad, she gives a gentle “mmm-hmmm,” to let you know she’s been there and wants nothing more than to help you feel better.

———

Well.

After reading that and thinking ‘no computer can replace a doctor’ … I would suggest to you that here is where we face the true dilemma. When it comes to raw data — computers are smarter than us. The wealth of wisdom housed on connected hard drives around the globe is simply more than a human brain can handle. Therefore <using medicine as an example> when you go to the doctor no matter how smart & good the doctor is you really only have access to a fraction of knowledge.

That said.

People will be quick to point out the infamous ‘human factor.’ This is the tried & true anti-technology point of view that computer programs have always lacked the ability to read body language, non-verbal cues, and all those parts of communication that make us human.

Uh oh. THAT is changing too. As with most of these interactive type applications, the more you use it, the better job it does at reading you — picking up whether your voice is hoarse or your breathing labored, or whether you sound worried or anxious. There are programs in development now <some actually in market> which are able to detect your mood, read your state of mind, and respond accordingly with one of its tens of thousands of recorded answers. Yes. There are limits and having worked with a telemedicine app I have seen the human/technology dynamic firsthand, but we would be silly to ignore the value of a technology augmenting human expertise/wisdom.

Whew. So these new apps can also share your information with anyone you choose — from a health care professionals to your favorite store. On the flip side, these apps also share your information with people you don’t choose <this is the seamy side of data gathering>.

This is our brave new world. Regardless. Like it or not giving some technology some information about us will make our world, and Life, better.

Ok. I say all this because there is a shit load of discussion going on about privacy. I actually suggest this is going to be a clash of generations. Older folk think ‘big brother’ and ‘invading my privacy’ <I will also note here that these are the same people who cannot understand how young people share everything on twitter, snapshot and any social media channel>.

On the other hand younger people think … “hmmmmmmmmm … convenience.” Gratification faster.

Look. We older people don’t get it. We are not only afraid of ‘having someone know too much’ but also don’t get that younger people are just more comfortable with sharing some things than we are. By the way I would also suggest to old folk that younger people certainly understand limits with regard to what they share.

Simply because they share things we cannot fathom ever sharing … they will protect their ‘important secrets’ as well as anyone older.We are going to just throw up roadblocks and bitch & moan about privacy and all the shit that old people bitch about as young people pass them by. If you liked this, you may want to consider this.

Behavioral tools are here to stay and will be used by everyone, well, everyone being anyone under the age of say 35 or so.

I used to tell people we use research to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use numbers to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use data to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

Now.

I tell people we use algorithms to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

—-

Me

===============

“An idea of working based on three pillars: science, insight and faith. Science because I’m a social scientist by training. I believe in data, robustness of information, making sure you’re on the right track. Insight because if you’re not able to draw insights from research, you’re not a strategist, just someone observing the data. And faith because you never know what’s going to work, so you always need a bit of faith to get everyone started.”

—

Laura Chiavone

================

I believe great companies have one common infrastructure characteristic: culture. Good companies can be grounded in systems, processes, operations, etc, however, the step up to ‘great’ demands a culture (which is always implemented by people) to elevate the ‘infrastructure aspects. I thought of this because Mike Walsh has a new book, The Algorithm Leader, which suggests that the most successful companies of the future will support/augment/enhance that culture infrastructure – with algorithms. Now. Before anyone defaults into thinking this translates into “empty soul, technology order taker” company, or even holocracy (ponder how polar opposites could be relevant to the algorithm topic), let me share some thoughts on how I believe the thinking suggests structural value creation lift: for business & humans. To me this will occur through a balance of stability (knowledge infrastructure), uncertainty (quests versus missions) & understanding of Antifragility (selective redundancy maximizing untidy opportunities).

Let me pose some thoughts on the relationship between algorithms and antifragility upfront.

====================

“It is optionality that makes things work & grow.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t provide answers, but options. Maybe, more importantly, we become a little less comfortable with the need for construct and more comfortable with using algorithms as dynamic application of ‘movable construct’ at the right time & place.

“The antifragility of some comes necessarily at the fragility of others. In a system the sacrifice of some units – fragile units or people – are often necessary for the well-being of other units or the whole.” AntiFragile

Algorithms should enable an organization to identify progress paths to explore and discover rather than simply meet the needs of present identified ‘paths’ of progress or solve present identified issues & vulnerabilities.

=================

Full disclosure on my business beliefs. Throughout my career I have always felt comfortable by making the less certain decisions just certain enough that someone would go “well, it seems riskier, but, if you own it, go do it.” I say all that because I believe all Future of Work discussion should be grounded on the relationship between certainty & uncertainty – for the business, the people within the business organization and people’s minds/attitudes.

Algorithm leadership.

Most people want certainty therefore they let research make decisions, use numbers to make decisions, show data to make decisions and, increasingly, will suggest algorithms make decisions.

This is just a different type of efficiency couched in efficient operations. It will be called “efficient decision making.” The problem is this efficiency is just an attempt to strip a decision of uncertainty and, well, the best, most effective; decisions always carry along some burden of uncertainty.

The former is about figuring out how to maximize from disorder or uncertainty while the latter is not becoming too dependent upon seemingly ‘certainty.’

—

“The future of companies, regardless of size, will be shaped by algorithms.”

Mike Walsh

—

Ultimately, it will be humans who use the shapes created by algorithms to assess options, evaluate antifragile components and navigate asymmetrical uncertainty.

It within this dynamic environment in which we should note business is inherently fragile. HBR once said “business is a quivering mass of vulnerabilities.” I say that because as a pendulum swings one way it will inevitably want to swing the other way. We inherently feel the fragile pendulum swing and start seeking to build ‘un-natural’ antifragile aspects to create a sense of antifragility. Aspects like systems, process, rules, KPIs, data/dashboards and, yes, algorithms. Depending on how fragile we see, or feel, the business to be the more likely we use the created mechanisms to ‘tell us what to do.’ We must fight against those instincts.

Frankly, this is where generations DO become relevant in discussing business. Older workers, 50somethings, can be an impediment by seeing past experience as ‘certainty’ . On the other hand, some 50somethings can actually be a bridge between some certainty-type learnings and younger people who are more comfortable with disorder (but they don’t necessarily have the expertise do discern the best bridges between certainty & uncertainty).

Here is what I do know. Business people inherently abhor risk, business organizations inherently gravitate toward the ‘safest’ and numbers, research, data & algorithms look like life rafts in a risky, safe seeking business world. That said. I also know progress is rarely found without some risk and is often found on ‘not-the-safest’ path. Algorithms create a false sense of ‘right thing to do.’ any leader who leans on algorithms too much isn’t leading. Period.

Uncertainty leadership.

For this I lean in on How to Lead a Quest by Dr. Jason Fox. In times of uncertainty a business does not need business ‘heroes’ but rather people aligned on a quest and leaders who embrace the uncertainty of a complex interconnected multi-dimensional business world.

—-

“You must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.”

Indira Ghandi

—-

Contrary to popular belief I would suggest a highly successful algorithmic leader is likely a 50something who has navigated research, then data, the ‘dictating’ decisions challenge gauntlet, & who were more likely to see how seemingly unrelated disparate fragments could be coalesced into decisions and futures that the numbers/data didn’t completely support, but also did not completely discount. That ws a long winded way to introduce the idea of “data decipherers”. This type of leadership invaluable to an organization more & more steeped in numbers, dashboards, data & algorithms.

Jason Fox calls this “shining a light on the path before us.” leadership will not use algorithms for ‘squinting into the future but rather to identify the stepping stones in a sea of uncertainty. They will offer people moments of some certainty without promising a certain future nor even promising steady progress organizationally. It will be more about uncovering options, making choices to alleviate stressors, so that teams can breakthrough while others provide the organization with the redundancies to protect an organization from uncertainty vulnerabilities.

Here is what I do know. psychologically businesses will arc toward a belief algorithms will provide an increased tidiness and symmetry to business. that is a false sense of tidiness. Business will become increasingly untidy, the paths will become increasingly complex, therefore business will become increasingly uncertain with regard to the best, and proper steps, necessary for progress. Pragmatically business will need more, and better, leadership comfortable with uncertainty despite more numbers, data and algorithms.

Antifragile leadership.

Crisis, disaster resolution is rarely about resources available but rather people availability.

Here I lean in Taleb’s AntiFragile because I just reread it. We tend to build redundancies incorrectly, don’t assume for disorder well & only enhance fragility in plans. We too often see AntiFragile as a “leadership concept” when in reality it is best absorbed by Agile teams.

Risk management almost always solely focuses on resources necessary to sustain, and manage, foreseen crisis. As Taleb points out the largest flaw in that is most crisis do not look similar to ones on the past (they will have similarities but still be unique). In addition. Most organizations build in redundancy safety nets as, well, a net. Because we dislike fragility so much we start building in antifragile everywhere. We tend to think of leadership as “what if” redundancy design. Antifragile leadership should be more ‘aligning resources to meet different scenarios.” Some people would call this ‘agile.’ I would not. I would simply call this pivoting (I am old school). great businesses have always been able to pivot to meet market challenges and opportunities. This may be a hyperized version of that, but it is still pivoting – no more, no less.

This is where I would view using algorithms a little differently than other people. Algorithms tend to look at opportunities when I believe they could be better used to identify stress points and stressors. Most good leaders are best as problems solvers (that doesn’t mean they don’t optimize existing operations/situations just that where good leaders get paid the big bucks is getting moments/situations unstuck). I would also argue identifying stressors permits smarter experimenting and tinkering.

Here is what I do know. Algorithms, used properly, permit people to stop just optimizing for the present and start attempting to optimizing the future. Yes. It may mean being less efficient in the short term (sometimes), but, done well, will create a more effective long term construct.

Conclusion:

I think we will be “directed to act” by algorithms, but not managed by. The latter demands acceptance of algorithm as qualified to make us to do something behaviorally, the former demands we accept algorithms as something that ‘informs’ our doing. Somewhere in between is the decision of how much we, people, are accountable for thinking. Algorithms inherently encourage us to believe business is not best when it is random. Yet. The best businesses resist the urge to suppress randomness and permit people to be more accountable for some untidy decisions with some untidy outcomes.

All businesses will exist, in some form or fashion, grounded in algorithms. I am fairly sure that’s a given. The challenge will be to not get consumed by algorithms.

To realize algorithms do not give answers, but outline options.

To realize algorithms don’t define redundancies, but rather where and when to apply redundancy resources (therefore help to define how to create proper redundancies).

“Every single one of us is good at something. Some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it. “

=

William Chapman

—- “I told her once i wasn’t good at anything.

She told me survival is a talent. You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”

=

Clementine von Radics

—

“To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.”

=

Ottmer <the futurist>

—

Well. Let me begin by saying, well, being better is better.

Or better said: better is good.

In addition. Being good at something is good.

Those are two basic Life thoughts. Simple thoughts, but kind of important thoughts. Important because they are pervasive throughout civilization, culture, attitudes and certainly drives behavior.

Now. The most basic aspect of this whole thing of people wanting to be really good at something and, I imagine why people want to be passionate about something, is that they have experience with lack of passion. I say that last thought because <here is a Life truth> the reason why we’re not passionate about stuff we’re not really good at is because we aren’t <cannot be> passionate about stuff we suck at.

Here is where it gets a little screwy. Being good at something is a minefield mentally.

Huh? What do you mean <you ask me>??

How many times have you heard some version of the following phrases?

• “Everyone has a special skill!“

• “You just need to practice!“

• “You haven’t tried everything yet!“

• “You better work out what special skill you have and then use it for the rest of your life because if you don’t you’ll live in a dumpster fighting with cats for food!“

That trite advice is fine for people who are good at things, but what if you just suck at everything?

<or at least have sucked at everything you have tried to date>

Well. Here is the good news. It is next to impossible to suck at everything. It is much more likely that “… some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it.”

As a corollary, in reality, it’s impossible to be good at every single thing you try.

Oh. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you suck. It’s all about perspective and how you define whether you’re good at something. For instance, are you basing how bad you are at something on your own standards or are you comparing yourself to others? If it’s the latter then you need to stop and remind yourself that we are all individuals. You’re not inferior or inept, you’re just different <kind of like snowflakes … okay … maybe not>.

Suffice it to say that insecurities and doubts limit your potential <regardless of whether you suck or are actually good> so if you intend to succeed at something you must first get rid of them.

Ah. But here is the curve ball Life throws at you <or is it a screwball??> — while you are figuring out what you are good at a whole shit load of incompetent assholes around you are trying to convince everyone what they are good at <of which they are actually not good at what they think they are>.

Incompetent people don’t know they are incompetent <in other words … they don’t think they suck>.

——

When asked, most individuals will describe themselves as better-than-average in areas such as leadership, social skills, written expression, or just about anything where the individual has an interest.

This tendency of the average person to believe he or she is better-than-average is known as the “above-average effect,” and it flies in the face of logic … by definition, descriptive statistics says that it is impossible absurdly improbable for a majority of people to be above average.

It follows, therefore, that a large number of the self-described “above average” individuals are in fact below average in those areas, and they are simply unaware of their incompetence.

——-

It seems that the reason for this phenomenon is obvious:

– The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone’s skill in that space, including their own.

– When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well.

Anyway. What this means is that the incompetent tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities.

—

“He felt he was himself and did not want to be otherwise. He only wanted to be better than he had been before. “

Leo Tolstoy

—

The Department of Psychology at Cornell University made an effort to determine just how profoundly one mistakenly overestimates one’s own skills in relation to one’s actual abilities.

They made the following predictions before the studies:

– Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.

– Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone else’s.

– Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of social comparison information. In particular, because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.

Rather than showcase the study and the results let me just say … they were correct in their assumptions.

Look. While I have spent a lot of time talking about incompetence and the incompetent, there is nothing more beautiful than watching competence in action. Especially if they are just good, not great, and have the awareness to build on their good in pursuit of … well … not great … but something better.

—-

“No one is good at everything, but everyone is good at something.”

any after school 1990’s special

—-

“Sucking is the first step to being sorta good at something”

Thorin Klosowski

—

And maybe that is why competence <or being good> is so beautiful to watch … it is the pursuit.

The pursuit? Being good at something mostly means you weren’t as good, or even sucked, at some point. This means the true competent people keep pushing.

Being good at something means no dumb questions, no dumb answers and no low <or stagnant> standards. And that is where I believe the whole concept of ‘being good at something’ should be grounded.

It’s not passion.

And, frankly, it may not even be something that comes easily to you.

It is more about holding yourself to some higher standard.

It is about the desire to keep pushing.

It is about being responsible for not quitting.

—-

“Hold yourself responsible for a higher standard than anybody else expects of you, never excuse yourself.”

Henry Ward Beecher

—–

In the end. Set aside ‘higher standards’ or ‘accepting you are good at something’ … in the end I respect … well … caring.

Giving a shit.

Or maybe call it … ‘nerdy as fuck about something.’

—-

“I respect people who get nerdy as fuck about something they love.”

Leah Raeder

——-

Caring enough about what you do is a good thing … and it makes you good at something.

It’s not passion.

It’s maybe not any real ability.

It’s just about the fact that you care.

By the way. Getting back to the first quote I used.

This also suggests, on those tough days and tough stretches in Life, simple survival is a talent because it means you care about Life.

Uhm. And that is a good thing to be good at.

Care about Life and never, never, apologize for how you choose to survive.

“The primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation, but thoughts about it.

Be aware of the thoughts you are thinking.”

–

Eckhart Tolle

====

I am not a big fan of simply saying “it is what it is” mostly because … well … most times it is much much more than that. However. Sometimes. Yes. Sometimes it “is” simply because it, well, is. At these times I would note we get unhappy. Usually not because of the situation, but rather because of the thought behind it.

<please note: I imagine I have just bastardized Tolle’s real thinking, but it fits what I want to say>

Anyway. I attribute the our true unhappiness behind the thinking of “it is what it is” to one of two things:

– Occam’s razor:

This is the thought that “the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually right.”

I like to think it is called Occam’s razor probably because the thought cuts straight to the truth, but ‘experts’ suggest the term razor refers to distinguishing between two hypotheses either by “shaving away” unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two similar conclusions.

Whatever.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is all there is. It is what it is.

And we hate not only Occam, but his frickin’ razor.

– Illogical pragmatism:

Some things just cannot be explained. It sounds illogical, but, pragmatically, any explanation is illogical. Or just illogically complex. Therefore, there is no explanation. Pragmatically, it is just what it is. Illogical as it may sound. And while we like pragmatism, we hate anything illogical. And we particularly hate if the pragmatic is illogical.

That said. Very few things frustrate us more than when there is no explanation for something. It drives business people frickin’ crazy.

Oh. What do business people hate maybe even worse? That Occam thing. The simple concise explanation. The understanding that simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones is not an idea we really like in business. Yeah. We talk about simplicity in a fond way, but most times we hate it. More often we struggle to accept the simple and revel in the complex.

This love of complex really has nothing to do with solutions but rather we like having things explained to us. That is typically where things get complex. Simple explanations are, well, unbelievable <crazy, huh?>.

Now. I actually believe we manage this fairly well in everyday life, but really suck at this in business.

Whew. “It is what it is” at work? Never. Or maybe at best … rarely.

My point? Most things have an explanation.Let’s say maybe 90% or so.

Most things obviously have real definitive explanations and some things have enough of an explanation that they have some edge or tangibleness to them, but it’s the stuff in the middle that requires a more subtle explanation or even an admittance of sheer uncertainty of “why is this as it is.”

Ah. That’s 10% or so.

Well. Sometimes things just “are.” And explanations are too complex … and frankly … unnecessary <albeit frustrating to not have one>.

Sure. We should be diligent with regard to inevitable straying into a complacent belief believing that things ‘just are’ and there is nothing you can do <or should do> to change it to make it better or to actually avoid true explanations where they are merited. And while it frickin’ kills me to suggest “it is what it is” … some things just are, and no matter how much you wish they were different, they’re not.

That said. We have difficulty in trying to understand that there can be some things that fall in the non-explanation category <that wretched ‘middle’> that it is neither in the good nor the bad category <by the way … not being able to explain does not make it inevitably bad>.

We seem too often to have to have an explanation to satisfy us. And it’s this sense of ‘satisfaction seeking’ that we should be wary of <or maybe it simply leads us astray and we should be wary of getting lost – insert ‘weeds’ here ->.

The unexplained is very unsatisfying. Someone wrote this:

“The Unexplained” has a somewhat sinister connotation to our adult minds because it puts us on shaky ground. Our reason has nothing to hang on to. When circumstances are not to our liking, we are likely to use phrases like, “I demand an explanation” or “You’ve got some explaining to do!” Of course this has not so much to do with shedding some light on the situation as it has to do with making ourselves feel safer, more secure in the midst of something which has inconvenienced us.

We can even become suspicious, paranoid, fearful and neurotic if our dependence on explanations is too strong and we cannot actually find one.

In my words … it can kind of drive us nuts. We need to realize that sometimes we put way too much emphasis on trying to figure out what is right and wrong … or even worse … seeking an explanation for something that just ‘is.’

Look. With so much unpredictability and seeming chaos in business <because shit moves so fast> sometimes the explanation really doesn’t matter.

It just is.

It is the way it’s supposed to be.

It is just the way it happened.

All the over analysis, over thinking, over planning, over explaining doesn’t accomplish anything. While it may make us feel better putting an ultimate <but incredibly convoluted and complex> explanation on something, sometimes it doesn’t accomplish anything <useful>.

In fact all that thinking trying to identify ‘the explanation’ can freeze you to a point where you get stuck over thinking — all in the attempt in trying to rationalize everything.

You can get overwhelmed not by the situation <or the amount of situations> but simply by the lack of explanation.

You can get overwhelmed not by the chaos of complexity, but rather by the act of ignoring, or even arguing against, the simple solution <the fact it ‘just is’>.

So much of our stress and anxiety comes from our attempts at finding an explanation or even a simpler ‘is it good or bad’ definition to the challenge or situation. Yeah. We like things to be a certain way <mostly not simple>. Yeah. We like the feeling that things in life should be generally good. And, yeah, explanations help us define good or bad <or at least help us define blame or resolution or whatever>. Yeah. We just like explanations. Simple, complex, any size shape or form … we will take anyone we can get.

Regardless.

The bottom line? We are reluctant to accept things that cannot be defined or explained. We hate “it just is what it is” things.

Look. Explanations are good … and bad.

Good in that it helps to have some boundaries and guidelines and … well … definition <or Life would just be some nebulous blob … disgusting thought, huh?>.

Bad in that some things are simply undefinable therefore forcing an explanation into a ‘it is what it is’ scenario creates some unfair & untrue conclusions.

Anyway.

Some things are simpler than we make them out to be.

And some things just cannot be rationally explained.

And sometimes it just isn’t worth investing the energy trying to rationalize it.

Up to a point a man’s life is shaped by environment, heredity, and the movements and changes in the world around him. Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate.

Everyone has it within his power to say, ‘This I am today; that I will be tomorrow.’

The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds.”

–

Louis Lamour

===============

So. This is about living Life and personal velocity (progress with momentum). I have written about self esteem and self image and living life, but until now I have never found a quote that summarizes a belief I have always had lurking in the back of my head.

“Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be.”

How awesome is that? (pretty awesome)

It is absolutely true that a lot of what may hold us back from our dreams, or maybe more importantly, being whatever it is we want to be isn’t our fault <or in our control>. Life throws a shitload of shit at us. It would be foolish to not recognize that.

But.

The days when nothing seems to go right.

The days where dreams seemed to have vanished.

The days where ‘not drowning’ is the focus instead of ‘swimming.’

All those days are gonna happen – to all of us. And it is on these days where it becomes really really easy to focus on excuses. But. We do have power to shape our tomorrows. Ignore the excuses and recognize that even if circumstances make things difficult, improving things is NOT impossible.

Sure. Sometimes a little ingenuity is required. Sometimes you almost have to trick circumstances. Sometimes you have to zig when Life zags and sometimes you have to take some risks and get a little lucky.

Which leads me to these words:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

Absolutely … most people underestimate what they can do today.

Absolutely … most people over estimate what they can do tomorrow.

Despite that … it still comes down to two things: action and objectives.

Actions.

What I am tomorrow depends on what I do today. My actions today make me who I am tomorrow. You get it.
This is all about first step, baby. Takin’ that first step. You constantly hear “I’ll do it tomorrow”. And when it doesn’t happen tomorrow, it becomes the next tomorrow and the next and …. well … you get it (and I will explain why under objectives).

But. While you hear that … what is actually the truth? What do people really do? (and you just may not always see it)

Here is the truth behind actions and this thought. People who decide mentally to “do something” actually, uhm, do something. No shit. They do take action. They do begin to “shape the clay of their life to become what they want to be.” They do.

Then what is the problem?

Objectives.

Doing is often dependent upon how we view our objectives and this sometimes gets mired down in meeting the sometimes farcical absurd expectations in the mind. That said. Let me take a minute on ‘objectives.’ Scott H Young wrote in May 2006, in a piece called “Balancing Today and Tomorrow“, about a nifty concept called “velocity based thinking (or goal setting)” versus positional goals:

—————————

How is it possible to balance living in each moment and the concept of personal growth and improvement? Doesn’t personal development imply a certain dissatisfaction with where you are in life? At the very least, doesn’t an obsession with personal growth indicate that you are constantly living in the future, rather than enjoying each moment? How can we remove this apparent dichotomy and get the improvement we desire along with satisfaction now? In other words, how can we live for today and still strive for tomorrow?

The old position based paradigm told us to focus on where we are in life. If we have a big house, a nice family and are in good health, then we can be happy. If we are poor, miserable and alone then we are depressed. Pretty simple. In this paradigm, our main focus is on our current position.

Some take this position based thinking to a slightly higher level when they don’t think about where they are but where they are going. Instead these people draw their level of happiness from the position they feel they will be in the future. Although this is an improvement, the cost of being unsatisfied with today is simply too high a price to pay for this paradigm.

There is an alternative paradigm, however. This is a velocity based paradigm. In this paradigm, where you are doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter where you are going to end up. From this perspective, our focus not where we are going, but rather, the rate we are getting there. This perspective tells us that being homeless or a millionaire makes no difference. It is only the rate at which they are improving that distinguishes them.

The major distinction between a velocity based goal and a position based one is mostly in how you view the goal. Positional goals are usually viewed as a means to achieve something. If I set a goal to lose x pounds in three months, then what I am pursuing is the goal itself. Velocity based goals take a completely different approach. The purpose of a velocity based goal is to serve to direct, focus and amplify the growth you are experiencing right now.

Imagine life is like climbing an infinitely large cliff side. Positional thinking tells you to try and get as high up the cliff as you can. Positional goals are used to reach new plateaus on the cliff. Velocity based thinking tells us that getting really high up on the cliff is irrelevant given its infinite nature. Instead velocity based thinking tells us that the true experience of life has to come from the rate at which we are climbing the cliff. Sitting at one notch of the cliff for too long is boring and unsatisfying regardless of your height. Velocity based goals in this sense are not used to reach the plateaus themselves, these goals are used to encourage, push and measure the rate at which you are climbing.

The key difference between positional goals and velocity based goals is simple. If you fail to achieve a positional goal, this is usually very demotivating. This is often why so many new goal setters fail to continue with the practice. The pain of failing to achieve when you’ve tried your best is often too great. Velocity based goals remove this problem entirely. Because the goal was simply a servant of directing and pushing your own growth, as long as you know you were trying your best (maximum velocity possible) then the goal was successful regardless of whether you underestimated the deadline necessary.

A velocity based paradigm is actually far more effective in improving our position.

The reason is actually rather simple. Positional based thinking is built on the notion of competition. As a result, we strive to make leaps ahead in our position based on where we are compared to others. If we are on the top then we slow down, for what is the point of trying really hard when you are already in the lead? If we are on the bottom, negativity and pessimism often cripple our growth. Position based thinkers tend to only achieve a maximum velocity when they feel they need to increase their position, yet that positional increase is achievable. Velocity based thinking doesn’t have this weakness. People who truly live this ideal are at a maximal velocity all of the time. Being at the top or bottom holds no distinction to these people. Rich or poor, strong or weak, healthy or ill these people are always traveling at a speed which is the most they can possibly achieve.

—————————-

I have always been a Velocity believer but what I like about personal velocity is it isn’t about frickin’ milestones and moving up the ladder and crap like that. It is about actions and objectives in a “movement” framework. And movement at your own pace. Its not a competition, but rather just with a goal of improving personal being. Judging yourself against … well … yourself I guess.

And with that I get to complete the circle on this quote and thought:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

The only really important word L’Amour uses throughout this thought is “I.”

It’s not about competition.

It’s not about goals and objectives.

It is about I. And what “I” wants <or needs>.

That said. Life is tough enough without having to have someone else tell you how to ‘progress’ personally. Go your own speed. Fuck what anyone says.

Sure. Business weighs you down with meaningless milestones & expectations all the time.

Sure. Society, in general, crams goals down your throat all the time.

And, sure, becoming who you want to be “tomorrow” takes lots and lots of work.

But. I would suggest you are actually minimizing your chances of success if you always go the speed of what everyone else is demanding of you. Maximizing your ‘self success’ is mots likely found in finding, and going, your own velocity.

Anyhow.

I love this quote.

Love it mostly because I like the way it gives the truth instead of some pithy inspirational flippant quote. I like it because while it frames time in a today-tomorrow dimension it doesn’t say how fast it should be, or needs to be, done. You choose the velocity in which it happens.

… a longing for something so indefinite as to be indefinable. Love affairs, miseries of life, the way things were, people already dead, those who left and the ocean that tossed them on the shores of a different land – all things born of the soul that can only be felt.

==

Anthony De Sa

———–

“He marveled at the indifference of the world, the way it kept on, despite everything.”

==

Anthony Doerr

————-

Ok. I am fairly sure everyone desires the greater intangible things in life: the things, or thing, you just cannot put words to but you know is out there and you will “know it when you see it or feel it”. Unfortunately, well, the intangible also tends to be elusive.

It is also very very difficult to clearly define or put words to it <hence many people choose to focus on some specific milestone or objective>. I think I would suggest the intangible is elusive because the world is indifferent to our desires. What do I mean? It is relatively uninterested in offering the intangible in tangible form. The world simply tends to fork over tangible crap to us and it is up to us to peel it all back and bask in the intangible good stuff found within.

But that takes time and is more difficult.

Therefore. We tend to seek tangibles. And more tangibles. And then more tangibles. This means that we are almost destined, despite that in our soul we deeply long for something indefinable, to settle for tangible proof that we are showing some progress.

I do not really care what the proof is … just that we settle for it.

What Is Elusive? The definition of “elusive” is:

elusive: evasive, slippery, difficult to find, catch or achieve

Speaking of desiring proof – that is why we often create deadlines. Deadlines are powerful things as we face our longing for the indefinite <and the definite>. More often than not we use the deadline to insure we do not waste too much time on something we are not sure can be easily defined. But think about what a deadline really is.

Today the term is now used, mostly, to refer to “the time by which something must be completed.” In the historical sense a deadline refers to the boundary around a prison which, if prisoners crossed it, they’d be shot by the guards. Wow. Okay. So while deadlines are everywhere in the business world we no longer get shot it does seem like we just get shit when we cross a deadline.

Now. Psychologists have done a boatload of research on the effect of deadlines on people. Invariably the majority of people actually improve performance as a deadline nears. They explain this by something called “the Yerkes-Dodson law.” This law suggests performance increases as arousal <excitement, stress, tension, nervousness> increases. Well. At least up to a point from which performance declines as the person, and senses, are overwhelmed.

Basically this suggests we become more aware of consequences of failing to complete what we want to do as time slips away and act upon that awareness <with some focus because the consequences of not meeting the deadline while may not include being shot certainly includes a load of shit>.

In addition. Deadlines tend to eliminate procrastination mostly because we dislike the unpleasant feeling of consequences of not meeting a deadline. Stick with me because this all has to do with our longing for something indefinite.

Ok. Now comes the next horrible thing that happens as we pursue what we truly long for. We have a deadline in our heads and we encounter something called the planning fallacy. We suck, extraordinarily so, at estimating how much time to allocate for things because our brains, in general, are quite overly optimistic with regard to our own capabilities. Therefore we underestimate time. In addition we do this because our brains have a nasty habit of looking back on past poor time allocation and failed deadlines and blame external causes <and yet the next time the thought will be that this time we will be unencumbered therefore meet our deadline successfully>.

All of this circles back to that ‘arousal’ consequence, which we hate, as it rears its ugly head one more time as our optimistic assumptions crash into the actual reality of the situation. I bring it back to ‘arousal’ because all that painful consequence stuff occursWHEN YOU ARE PURSUING A TANGIBLE GOAL.

The waters get even murkier if you are setting some deadline on how much time you want to spend on pursuing this elusive indefinite thing. But. We are truly optimistic folk. Well. At least some of us are. What one person thinks of as elusive and indefinite another sees hope and opportunity. And depending on where you are in Life your feeling can change. The one consistent steady thing is that at all times there is a longing for something more, some longing for something so indefinite as to be undefinable.

So what can we do? We have to take responsibility for our lives and choices and this indefinite thing. We cannot subvert the longing and suffocate it with the tangible.

To be clear <part 1>. The longing should not dictate our lives and behavior, but it also should not play a role in our lives and actions.

To be clear <part 2>. That isn’t easy. Life can throw a bunch of curve balls and … well … some high hard fastballs. The biggest fastball Life throws at you is what I call “Life comparison shopping.” You shop your life against other lives.

In the good ole days it was called “keeping up with the Joneses” <using one’s neighbors as a standard of comparison for the consumption of material goods>. This sounds silly, but we are human, and it is hard not to notice when your neighbor buys something. But they are not the only standard of comparison. Television shows, magazines, websites, and pretty much anywhere you consume information inundates us with stories about what other people have, wear and do.

Yes. While we know we shouldn’t care mostly because, while we may not articulate it this way, we know conspicuous consumption ubiquitous.

Tangible proof is, well, tangible proof.

The tendency to compare yourself to to other people is fundamental and is going to occur whether or not we intend it. And, yes, in some cases, social comparison is useful. In the absence of objective standards of success, social comparison helps us to evaluate and improve ourselves. And yet, at the same time, sometimes social comparison suggests you are inferior in some aspect <wealth, intelligence, appearance, etc.> which can create some feelings of envy or ‘lesser than.’ Okay. This is where the tangible proof path absolutely frickin’ kills us on this pursuit of something undefinable.

“Lesser than” feelings erode the belief you can ever attain what you long for <I mean your head says “c’mon … if you cannot even be good enough to do that how can you be good enough to attain something you cannot even define .. all you can do is just discuss as something you ‘long for’?”>.

Then we remain on the middle path too long. We start missing out on the dreams. We shelve the longing and inevitably that which is undefinable remains undefined and that which we long for simply becomes an immature pursuit for only those who are dreamers. You justify this decision, and personal behavior, as you walk the middle path by always thinking that eventually you will get around to pursuing this longing … and eventually reach this undefinable thing that will makes you happy.

And then time is gone. And the longing, which is easily dismissed as “shit, I couldn’t even define it anyway”, is still there but the opportunity is gone.

Look. Pursuing something so indefinite as to be indefinable is tough. It is not for the faint of heart. To do so you need to accept that while some results are very tangible others are less so. The secret is to get your head straight from the outset on how ‘performance’ is to be measured then build in the means for measuring activity. I say that because I think the measurement is much more important than setting a deadline.

I mean, well, how can you set a deadline on something you cannot even define? <someone smarter than I would have to figure that out>.

In the end I use this quote:

====

“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement.This is how it starts, and, before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the rat pack. The price is too high.”

Jimmy Reid

=====

Part of being a human being is this inherent longing for “something.” Maybe it is captured in that one word: saudade.

“all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t do the day to day stuff that needs to be done nor am I suggesting that deadlines aren’t quite useful for some day to day shit, but I am suggesting that stuff shouldn’t be done at the sacrifice of our longing for “all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

“Character is that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of things a man chooses or avoids.”

=

Aristotle

—

Ok. Let me be clear upfront – I believe 90+% of Personal Branding is bullshit. Despite the fact I am a relatively unhireable 50something my resume & credentials are pretty popular with executive search companies <I assume it is because they like to have some fairly robust experienced people on file to round out their library, but never really find them a job>.

I received one several weeks ago that made me laugh out loud. I laughed mostly because, as noted upfront, I think the whole ‘personal branding’ thing is a bunch of bullshit. I also couldn’t believe they would have a luncheon, with relatively senior people who you would assume already know their shit, to discuss ‘dare to build your personal brand.’

Personal branding has become a widely popular topic. People from all walks of life are taking the idea more seriously. What about you? Do you want to make the most of what you have to offer and become more of what you visualize yourself to be? Are you asking, “What’s the right strategy for me?” and “How do I go about putting a personal brand strategy to work that will bring me greater success?”

Dare To Be Your Own Brand demands that you get clear on what makes you unique and how you want to be viewed by others. Then you have to leverage it with an unwavering commitment in everything you do and be willing to step out of your comfort zone, focus on a clear path for personal brand elevation and stay the course.

–

Please come prepared to:

Introduce yourself within 60 seconds

Ask individuals/group for introductions to your targeted companies

Share information you have to offer others in their job search

Exchange business cards

——

Look. I fully understand that in today’s business world simply having some skill won’t save you. I imagine only having some “texture” will save you <what your skill is wrapped in>. If all you offer is competence, someone can get it for cheaper from somewhere. Byy texture I mean you will have to create some connection between the work you have actually done and, well, you. To be clear, this “you” isn’t about daring to create a personal brand. It is about figuring out what a great company called DDBNeedham calls ‘personal narrative’<or a ‘brand narrative>.

Now. Narrative sounds boring. And not edgy. Not true.

It is only boring if you build your personal narrative upon something you do not and cannot control because that has no texture.

That is simply surface information.

So. I say this having seen a shitload of companies that have rich narratives.

What do I mean? Think your typical great stories …“hero/conflict/resolution’ type outline with regard to their narratives. They can do this because companies have people, obstacles, trials, competition and situations in which someone wins or loses. This also means they talk about the character of the organization, about virtues and attributes and all the things necessary to navigate their narrative <and be heroic in some form or fashion>.

Oddly … I have seen a shitload of people who also have incredibly rich narratives … and yet they never share them in an interview or on a resume or anything to do with gaining a position. For some reason most people inevitably decide to not tell a story. They decide to not have a narrative instead they elect to create some ‘personal brand’ instead or they end up gussying up a resume with facts and figures and dates and titles and schools and accomplishments — everything but a narrative.

It seems weird to me that companies invest so much energy in a narrative and people don’t.

It seems weird to me that people don’t talk about personal journeys or character traits.

And it seems weird to me we choose to instead talking about ‘building a personal brand.’ And in building this personal brand (using tried & true branding acumen) we seek to come up with some ‘unique selling proposition’ <USP> for ourselves. This is great for ‘selling’ and selling ourselves.

But. We end up having no texture. We end up having no character. We end up having limited personality <only to the extent type font and layout permit it to happen>.

What’s up with that?

We know there are a lot of talented passionate people doing similar things as we do. Yet we seem to desire either tricks <personal brand> or fooling ourselves into believing our accomplishments are some remarkable unattainable-by-others type feats in order to try and stand out in an insanely crowded market with insanely good people.

This is crazy.

We actually end up sacrificing the one true thing that differentiates ourselves. Yes. Ourselves. Our character. Our narrative.

Look.

You are not a brand.

You are not a Facebook profile.

You are not a list of accomplishments.

You are not a list of job titles.

You are not a list of companies who deemed to hire you in the past.

You are not a list of companies that have deemed to fire you in the past.

You are a person. A person with a personal <and one would assume unique> narrative.

So skip the whole personal branding thing and focus on creating a narrative that makes you interesting.

By the way. The personal narrative you create is not some convoluted narrative that fries the brain wrangling with it … and not so simple it is … well … too simple. Hack away the unnecessary. Hack away the boring shit. Hack away the hyperbole.

Just create an interesting narrative. Simplistically this permits you two basic paths to choose from:

1. A niche. A specialty skill.

Someone with a special skill in a narrow niche will always beat the pompous boring generalists who are good at everything <a lot of things> but not particularly great at one thing. The more specific you can be the better it will be.

2. Style. Panache.

Stand out by style <but do not sacrifice substance in doing so>. Use your personality and create some distinctness through style. It’s tricky … but you want to have a distinctive style that people link to you … and, hopefully, want to hire you for.

By the way <part 1> whatever the style it has to push to some edge. People don’t share boring shit. They only talk about things distinct <which inevitably is something that resides on the edge>.

By the way <part 2> I consciously did not suggest ‘edgy.’ Edgy implies something disruptive … and while I personally like disruptive … it is not for everyone. Simply seek a distinct style. And clarity is always more achievable on some edge. But it does not have to be edgy.

Anyway.

The whole personal branding or ‘create your own brand’ drives me nuts. And it actually scares me a little that well regarded executive search companies actually hold seminars to those who you would deem worthy of a higher salary <therefore having some credible career experience> to ‘dare to be your own brand.’

Now. I completely understand why this personal brand shit has become so discussed. It can be depressing to think about solely being measured by the actual work you do.

What do I mean? Well.

Based on my experience here is how compensation works these days:

===

do shit work … receive no pay.

do good work … receive shit pay.

do excellent work … receive good pay.

do remarkable, insightful, make everyone sit up and pay attention type work … receive excellent pay.

===

Yes. I made this up.

Yes. It is also kind of reflects reality.

Well … this means we are constantly trying to make the case we did something remarkable <or are someone remarkable>. And what does that mean? I assume it means “dare to create your own personal brand!!!” and make sure while creating it … you create something remarkable.

Bullshit.

If you are an executive going to some executive search company seminar on ‘creating a brand’, you are screwed. The last thing you need to be thinking is personal brand, you should be wondering why you are going to something like that in the first place <trust me … you will see your ‘brand’ is the least of your issues>.

If you are an executive <or anyone worth a shit> you should aim high and be ridiculously persistent with your aspirations.

You should be following the same advice I actually give businesses.

Don’t be afraid to pursue revolutionary ideas and don’t hesitate simply there are ‘unbeatable’ competitors.’

All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary All of this is temporary

———

Ok.

I was tempted to call this ‘the glimpses of perfection’ <which I also call “the flickering of perfection” somewhere later. What I mean by that is if you put any real effort into what you do, in business or in Life, you will actually brush up against perfection on occasion. And that’s the maddening part. Life is pretty maddening in that it often gives us these little glimpses of perfection, but at the same time refuses to let us actually keep it for anything longer than a glimpse.

This is where it all gets tricky. Therefore <because we like … no … LOVE … those glimpses> we constantly attack Life & business always slightly tainted by this ‘temporary perfection’.

Why? Because the temporary glimpses, those ‘moments’, they suggest perfection <or a version of it> is achievable. And you try and plan, and replicate, those glimpses so that they become the norm. Unfortunately we people are imperfect so replicating perfection is almost impossible. We struggle in this wretched in between almost everyday.Now.

First. Let me be clear. The whole idea of perfection is shit.

Second. That doesn’t mean we cannot achieve perfection <whew … there was a contradictory thought, huh?>

The difficulty resides in the fact that perfection is fleeting … and we only get glimpses of it. I sometimes refer to it as the flickering of perfection in our lives.

And you know what? That’s good <that flickering>. In fact I would argue it is often good enough.

Look. I imagine most of us probably feel like we are ‘doing’ somewhere between okay and good in most areas of life. We are, in our minds, doing a decent job day to day. Some days better than others but overall decent.

But perfection? Whew. I don’t think so. Maybe at moments … but all the time in life? No way.

That said. Maybe the key point, or issue, most likely comes down to my ‘definition of perfection’.

Here is my take.

I sometimes believe we see perfection as a home to move into.

It is not. It is a hotel <or maybe a motel>. You may stay one night … maybe a week <if you are really really lucky> … but you can’t live there.

Am I saying this as a way of condoning mediocrity?

No. Absolutely frickin’ not.

It is just a reminder you that people are not perfect <most of the time>.

It is a reminder that Life is not perfect <all the time>.

It is a reminder that Business is never perfect despite all the process, system, ROI & corporate cultural guidelines <never perfect contextually>.

It is a reminder that aiming for perfection <all the time> is wasted energy and maybe to take it easier on yourself.

Now. This doesn’t mean you should try to be your best <because you should>, maybe just acknowledge that your best doesn’t equal perfection <at least all the time>.

Uhm. Uh oh.

It is quite possible one would think that “doing your best” should be … well … our best, no? And if we believe that, … well … our best should equal perfection, no?

Unfortunately it doesn’t actually work that way.

That actually isn’t the formula.

This may be difficult to accept but your best is a jagged line. Jagged as it is dependent upon what you have and when you are doing something – context as it were.

On occasion that jagged line butts up against the ‘perfection line.’

So.

Unfortunately. Under the harsh spotlight of self judgment you may be tempted to judge this as not really your best. Or maybe you make it a caveated best. A derivative of best as it were.

=============

“It’s easy to miss and easy to mistake For when things are really great It just means everything’s in its place.”

Aimee Mann

============

Well. You would be wrong. Its not as long as you were truly “doing the best that you can.”

Oh shit. Trouble. In actuality … many times we are not actually doing our best.

Huh? C’mon. 90% of the time as we go thru the grind of Life & business you know you could do more <if the measure is truly our best>.

Look. I truly believe chasing perfection is an endless pursuit. And, frankly, if you try to do this you only put yourself under unbearable pressure aiming to be the perfect version of who you are. And, inevitably, this relentless quest for perfection can only bring disappointment … because not only is being perfect all the time <if not at any time> is an impossible task but it becomes exponentially more impossible <ok … how can something that is already impossible become exponentially so? … its kind of like getting three death sentences …> if you actually attempt to do “it” all the time.

Planning perfection, which is most often a random confluence of factors, is a sysiphean task. Someone can waste far too much time and energy trying to be the perfect ‘whatever’.

Sure. None of us want to be ‘less-than-perfect’ in anything we do but it is a fact of life. But. Here is some news. Ok.

No. Here is the fact.

Doing your best isn’t about perfection … it isn’t always trying to be perfect. Because doing your best is about “good enough with what you can actually do”. Doing your best is about maximizing ‘as long as it lasts.’ And that is often not perfection.

Ok.

In the end. Don’t think about perfection as ‘your best.” Best is simply … ‘effort + attitude’. And … just … well … do your best. Choose the moments and truly do your best <and admit the other times just aren’t your best you are just muddling through>.

Why?

Well. I believe every action has an equal and opposite reaction <actually … each action can have a variety of opposite reactions of which it is difficult for you to discern beforehand what will occur but that’s a different post>. Therefore if you perform any action the results will come, maybe not today or tomorrow, but at some time. So if people could keep their minds thinking what i just typed above and truly do your best at the right time and mentally unattach yourself from the outcome of the ‘best’ actions <and the concept of perfection> I think more people would be happier … and they may actually do their best more often. And, maybe more importantly, if you do not try and fool yourself into believing you had done “your best” in certain situations you may be able to manage your life expectation-wise a little better.

Regardless.

Just do your best and if you are lucky … you will get a glimpse of perfection. We can try and be our best all the time, but perfection is temporary. While that may sound painfully disappointing maybe look at it is “possibilities”.

——–

I dwell in Possibility—A fairer House than Prose—More numerous of Windows—Superior—for Doors—

Of Chambers as the Cedars—Impregnable of Eye—And for an Everlasting RoofThe Gambrels of the Sky—

“She wasn’t doing a thing that I could see, except standing there, leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together.”

–

J.D. Salinger

=================

Well.

This is about business. In today’s world if it doesn’t appear like you are doing something … then … well … damn it … you aren’t doing something <even if you may actually be holding the universe together>.

You have to be doing something that can be seen.

You have to because if you don’t everyone is convinced you are doing nothing. I call this issue … being challenged by the ‘outcome mentality.’ What I mean by that is efficiency driven outcome, or output, is everything. Do more with less is an insidious mantra because this not only suggests ‘more output’ matters but ‘less thinking, more doing’ is the path to more outcome.

That said. So what if your output is … well … holding the universe together.

C’mon. That’s a metaphor.

I’m not truly suggesting the actual universe, but let me talk about business. Sometimes you run across that leader or sometimes a manager or even a young employee <with some potential> who holds the business or the organization together. They appear to you in a variety of forms. They can be a rebel in that they are rebellious to the status quo every inch of the way toward their version of outputs. Some just effectively juggle the efficiency/effective balance. Others learn to weave a strong thread of thinking time into what they do, unseen, and produce a more effective outcome efficiently. That said. Sometimes when you look you cannot see what they are actually doing. They may be often seen doing nothing but standing there leaning on the balcony rail.

Uh oh. In today’s business world that person is screwed.

Look. I’m not suggesting you want people who do nothing, but sometimes people who look like they are doing nothing are actually doing a lot of something. And sometimes it is difficult to measure these people up against ‘outcome focused generators.’

What I mean by that is I have had people in my teams where during review time I have had to stack employees “top-to-bottom” and justify their salary, job status, existence within the organization, whatever review line item you want to call it … based on ‘what have they done.’

Tangible outcome crap.

And, well, sometimes your most valuable employee doesn’t look so hot based on sheer tangible outcome. It is only when you build in intangibles that they rise above the tangible outputters <not sure that is a word>.

Ok.

Any experienced business person reading this will be shaking their head going … “whew … been there” because you have a clear visual of a scrunched up face across the table from you saying things like “well … can’t we get them to do more? … I am struggling to see the comparable value to <insert some ‘outputter name’ here>.” You want to reach across the table and wring their neck shouting “they are frickin’ holding the universe together for god’s sake.”

Holding the universe together is a talent. It is a unique talent to make those around you better and more efficient, more effective and, well, happier <or maybe just more realistically positive in that they lift productivity – quality & quantity>. And sometimes that talent is embodied by ‘not doing anything but standing there.’

I have run across several business people who had the incredible ability to ‘hold the universe together.’ And I have had the incredibly ludicrous experience of having to encourage them to waste time to ‘tangibilize’ <once again … not sure that is a word> what they are doing so people can ‘see’ their value. As a manager, or leader, I imagine one of your responsibilities is to protect these valuable unique people from the challenges of the typical business world view and foster their abilities and opportunities.

Let’s be clear. This has some unique challenges because it has always been that an ‘outputter’ has never understood this type of person or value. Never have and never will. That’s okay … because organizations, just as in Life, need a variety of personalities and talents to be successful.

However. I do get a little concerned that the business world pendulum has swung so far over to efficiency & outcome & output that those who ‘hold the universe together’ is becoming a dying breed. Maybe I am less concerned for the immediate but over time. Because the young people with this talent and ability simply cannot protect themselves from an output world without help. And if all we do in business is to promote outputters … well … enough said. You get it.

I am sure throughout my career I have missed people who ‘could hold the universe together.’ And I rue those mistakes. I take solace in that I have recognized others and tried to herd them through the business gauntlet of ‘all that matters is results <or output>’. All I can say is that while as a leader you take pride in every employee you have the ones who have the ability to hold the universe together hold a special place in your ‘list of things done’ <or list of things ‘I didn’t screw up as a manager’>.

I imagine that is a reminder that in the end, as in the end of your business career or Life, the intangible often measures up more so than the tangible in reviewing ‘what I have done.’

I imagine this is all a reminder to all of us there are people all around us ‘holding the universe together’ in ways we just don’t see — but we benefit.

So before you judge someone for ‘not doing’ take a closer look just to be sure they aren’t holding the universe together.

“Our souls, which are only now beginning to awaken after the long reign of materialism, harbor seeds of desperation, unbelief, lack of purpose. The whole nightmare of the materialistic attitude, which has turned the life of the universe into a purposeless game, is not yet over. And yet, a weak light glimmers, like a tiny point in an enormous circle of blackness ….”

–

Vassily Kandinsky in 1912

=================

Today I speak of soul, purpose, life and business and in doing so I am totally going to misuse this quote which was written about art. This quote spoke to me in a way that explained the sense of desperation I sometimes hear people speak of when speaking of today’s world.And how they speak about their belief that too many in society think that being materialistic and greed is the prevalent sense of ‘being’ throughout society, business and the world.

I don’t really believe people think that way. Or, maybe better said, is I do not believe people want to think that way. I believe the majority of people simply act in a materialistic mode because they sense there is there no other path available, i.e., if they don’t the other guy will and they will get left behind and not get their ‘fair share’ of whatever the prize appears to be.

Let’s call it materialism survival mode in a zero sum game world.

Therefore the desperation I am talking about is truly a derivative of knowing that there is actually something is better. An understanding that materialism is a path with no real destination, in other words, as soon as you have what you have you want more <sociology calls this “hedonistic adaptation“>.

We want better <most of us> than this. Better just doesn’t seem so attainable these days.

In addition. In this sense of desperation <I wrote “who will stop the madness?” I admit that I don’t hear people using words like ‘weak light glimmering.’ They just see darkness and madness in the world,

Me? I see it. I see the weak light glimmering.

I see it in people themselves <in how I described where I believe the desperation evolves from>.

I see it as a generational “thing” <as in ‘turnings’ described by Strauss & Howe and cyclical attitudes and behaviors over generations, i.e., we have been here before attitudinally>.

I see it, most importantly, as the evolution of capitalism <which is the basic economic model for materialism — although we should all note that ‘materialism ‘ is a human attitude & behavior wrought from within and not from without>.

Anyway. The capitalism evolution is neither good nor bad simply an evolution and what is occurring is the natural friction that occurs during evolution <please note: I do not see this as ‘revolution’>. I could also note that there is natural friction that occurs in any change just that when an entire economic model creates friction it has some larger repercussions.

My belief in this arc of Captalism evolution to grounded in Schumpeter thoughts. If you read Schumpeter it can possibly explain why there is a sense of desperation or maybe a sense of uneasiness and why it is natural to feel this way.

According to Schumpeter there is a natural process of creative destruction within capitalism based on the affect the “cultural contradictions of capitalism” have:

– The Process of Creative Destruction.

I) Capitalism cannot be stationary. It revolutionizes the economic structure “from within”, destroying what went before through a process of competition that affects costs as much as quality. Creativity in consumer goods, methods of transport, of production, systems of organization, search for markets and technology. It is a process that undermines traditional supports existing at a given moment, weakening its own system. Moreover, capitalism devitalizes the idea of “property” <the existence of great and small shareholders>.

*** He is simply saying that capitalism inevitably empowers anyone anywhere to build something … and as that is built something has to be destroyed <or replaced> to accommodate it. Capitalism encourages individual thinking and ideation and business building. Interestingly … it is actually anti-establishment and anti-‘maintaining the norm.’ There is no normal in capitalism beyond its ongoing self destruction and reincarnation.

– II) Rationality. Capitalism encourages rationality in behaviour. Rationality involves, on the one hand, the “maximization” of particular interests of individuals and groups, the use of the instrumental means in a coherent form, and in the same way a series of readaptations empirically controlled by a procedure of flawed -testing. On the other hand, rationalization rushes into both private life and cultural forms. Consumption wins against accumulation, diminishing the desireability of incomes above a certain level. At the same time, however, when the breaks of certain values associated with ethical or religious tradition fail (the sophrosyne), irrational components of behaviour that are critical for capitalism emerge and cannot be refuted with rational arguments, especially when based on long term considerations.

*** Capitalism is a constant struggle between the rational <let’s say ‘profit & dollars & cents’ in this case> and the irrational <let’s call this the human Maslow ‘feel good’ intangible in this case> within people. It is interesting to note he suggests that money is a means to an end. In other words … you could earn a dollar a year and save only a dollar a year and be okay with that if you could consume <buy, eat, live to what you desire> whatever you wanted and needed. Regardless. This constant struggle occurs and when it is perceived to be out of balance there will be friction as compromise is debated <and neither side wants to let go of what they have or what they think – which are often inevitably linked>.

III) The Obsolescence of the Entrepreneurial Function. Increasing difficulties for the classical function of management. Increasing importance of specialized groups. The context, moreover, has been accustomed to change and each time a greater number of factors are calculable. The success of business ends up in removing the owners.

*** He is not suggesting that entrepreneurship or small business becomes obsolete in capitalism. What he is saying is that capitalism inherently makes good small businesses into big businesses and as that happens they lose the ‘entrepreneurial function.’ In other words …. Capitalism encourages small to become big and in doing so they destroy what made them successful in the first place <and inevitably they are ‘destructed’ either from within or from without – by small business that destroys them>.

– IV) Protecting Strata. In the modern era there was a symbiosis between the nobility and the productive sectors. The former occupied the State organization, guided political decisions and supplied officials for the army (the bourgeoisie was only sometimes in charge of local administration). It was a sector that survived the social and technical conditions that produced it. In conclusion: the bourgeoisie is politically defenseless without the protection of non-bourgeoisie sectors, but capitalism, however, encourages the breaking up of the precapitalist framework of society.

*** Capitalism is most effective with a strong middle class and not a massive gap between the haves and have nots. Effective capitalistic societies will strive to reset when the gap is to large and there will be inevitable conflict/friction when this occurs.

– V) Intellectuals. Characterized as those who exercise the power of the spoken and written word, they are used to not having any direct responsibility in practical matters and thus, they lack a direct knowledge of experience. They encourage self-conceived attitudes as “critical”, more from a logic of opposition, we could say, than from a logic of government. There exists a parallel between education and the scale of moral values in the intellectual sectors and the administrative or bureaucratic sectors against the values and technical criteria of the economic system as it operates.

*** I find it interesting that while Schumpeter is NOT discussing governmental structures <democracy, republic, socialism, communism> he gets right to the core of the issue in that inevitably officials who make decisions for the everyday person are most often not the everyday person nor do they think like the everyday person. Therefore the economic system may be operating at odds to what they believe is the right thing to do.

There you go. Schumpeter uses these five arguments to discuss the process of what he calls ‘the self-destruction of capitalism.’ Now. Self-destruction is not suggesting capitalism destructs as in ‘ends’ … but rather that in its ongoing self destruction <or crisis in Hegelian terms> it recreates itself <synthesis> into something new.

Heck. Now that I have written all this I can see why there is so much angst in the world today. I can even see why the business world is talking about “intrapreneurship” <having large companies seek small company attitudes & innovations>, distributed leadership models and, most importantly, Purpose & meaning into work.

Regardless of whether this is evolution or it is a ‘natural conflict’ or not. Conflict is conflict. It is friction. And in this time and place it is friction upon friction.

Not only is the entire system being reshaped <as it is cracked and put back together again> but the generational attitude infrastructure is also in conflict <of which Capitalism has been a catalyst for attitudes & beliefs>.

In the end.

Why are so many of us feeling uneasy, maybe even harboring some thread of desperation in what we see in the world today?

‘Our souls, which are only now beginning to awaken after the long reign of materialism, harbor seeds of desperation, unbelief, lack of purpose …’

Maybe our souls are simply awakening. Gee. That may feel like desperation but, well, who wouldn’t see a glimmer of light in that thinking?